Sexual Harassment Laws Make Every Man In America A Criminal
laws were perpetrated by shyster bitches so that womyn could be
'empowered' to get any of their male coworkers fired, any time the
mood strikes her and there's nothing a dude can do to stop her.
If you've never taken a close look at these public accountability
mandates (Federal and State Sexual Harassment laws), you're in the
right place to discover why the source of the fear that now dominates
the workplace. Not wishing to make you run to your Human Resources
department, I'll share the Federal and State sexual harassment statues
as they're given in a local company's sexual harassment policy.
Definitions of Sexual Harassment:
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual or
physical conduct of a sexual nature when either:
to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individual's employment;
to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the
basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or
3) such conduct
has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's
work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
person has a problem with items 1 or 2, since they embody 'classic'
sexual harassment - bed me or you're fired...bed me, if you want
that raise/promotion. Item three, the Catherine MacKinnon inspired
jewel, is the one that causes all the problems. 'Offensive working
environment' is a completely subjective concept which is defined
by the harassee (the woman in most cases) based on her feelings/sensitivities.
Anything a man does - any man, be he coworker, subordinate or boss
- which she 'feels' is sexually motivated can be cited as sexual
of California is even more 'inclusive' in it's definition of Sexual
because of sex and includes sexual harassment, gender harassment
and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical
- such as epithets, derogatory comments or slurs.
belittling, sexually explicit or degrading words to describe an
individual, sexually explicit jokes, comments about an employee's
anatomy and/or dress, sexually orientated noises or remarks, questions
about a person's sexual practices, use of patronizing terms or remarks,
verbal abuse, graphic verbal commentaries about the body.
- assault, impeding or blocking movement, or any physical interference
with normal work movement, when directed at an individual.
pinching, patting, grabbing, brushing against or poking another
employee's body, hazing or initiation that involves a sexual component,
requiring an employee to wear sexually suggestive clothing.
- derogatory posters, cartoons or drawings.
sexual pictures, writing or objects, obscene letters or invitations,
staring at an employee's anatomy, leering, sexually-oriented gestures,
mooning, unwanted love letters or notes.
- Unwanted sexual advances which condition an employment benefit
upon an exchange of sexual favors.
requests for dates, any threat of demotion, termination, etc., if
requested sexual favors are not given, making or threatening reprisals
after a negative response to sexual advances, propositioning an
Using this Californski
criteria, any woman could accuse any man of sexual harassment and
be right. If I tell a woman 'you look nice, today' or 'that color
looks good on you' and she chooses to interpret it as sexually motivated
I'm guilty (Verbal Harassment - example includes 'comments on an
employee's dress'). If I'm making a mess of my workplace to the
extent that a woman is blocked off from a door or aisle, and she
chooses to interpret it as sexually motivated, personal and deliberate
I'm guilty (Physical Harassment - the definition itself...'impeding
or blocking movement, or any physical interference with normal work
movement when directed at an individual'.) If I happen to look at
a female and she interprets my expression as sexually motivated,
I'm guilty (Visual Harassment).
The fun fact
about these laws is this: out here in the real world a man must
determine which of his female coworkers has the most exaggerated
sensitivity and limit his words/expressions/actions to her feelings/sensitivities.
His speech and actions are no freer than his most sensitive female
coworker will allow, no matter how insanely sensitive she might
be. If women had such limitations placed on them their outrage would
be deafening. And you wonder why men feel threatened. Maybe, it's
because we are being threatened with unwarranted termination the
instant a woman, any woman, chooses to accuse us.
It can't happen
you say. I've seen it. At a local electronics company, a woman in
the sales department accused a certain male coworker, a near minimum
wage man in the assembly area, of sexual harassment because he looked
at her 'that way'. By all reports, he liked to look at women,
any woman, all women. He was one of those guys who stares too much,
and probably too hard. Anyway, she went to the Vice President of
Finance the focal point for all sexual harassment complaints, and
accused this guy. By noon, that very same day, our assembly area
horndog had been fired and escorted from the building. All the woman
had to say was that 'he looks at me funny' or 'I don't like the
way he looks at me' and the guy is GONE!!!!!! Unlike the public
sector - where, by most reports, at least 70% of the sexual harassment
claims are filed - where it's nearly impossible to terminate anybody,
the private sector wastes no time in shedding a man who might be
guilty for fear that his alleged actions are inviting a lawsuit
or highly damaging investigation by the Department of Housing and
Fair Employment or the Fair Employment and Housing Commission.
like much more than the 'slight equalizing of the power between
men and women' that NO-NAD's used to sell this bovine excrement,
and it certainly extends far beyond 'boss-subordinate sex'. With
companies practicing scorched earth defenses where they instantly
terminate a non-management type male just because some woman accuses
him of sexual harassment, do you blame men for reacting so strongly?
When it comes to sexual harassment, especially for non-management
males, a man is guilty until proven innocent and even then he's
never fully trusted, again.
I know dudes
who go to extreme lengths to shield themselves from an unwarranted
accusation: One requested third shift to drastically limit the number
of women he encounters at work. Several never initiate a conversation
with any female coworker and they keep their responses to women
who initiate conversation as brief as possible and usually direct
them to someone else for the information they need, even when they
know the answer. Most of these dudes avoid making eye contact with
female coworkers and make every attempt to avoid looking at them
whenever possible. No doubt, their female coworkers judge them harshly
for all this, but it's more than justified in this tough job market.
Being called an 'asshole' or an 'arrogant bastard' is a lot better
than losing your job because you used the wrong word, had the wrong
look on your face, or inadvertently did something some hypersensitive
female misinterprets as personal and sexual.
The more women's
rights 'activists' and their apologists expand the definition of
sexual harassment, the more real sexual harassment - bed me or you're
fired, egregious groping, etc. - is trivialized. The result is that
these NO-NAD zealots alienate well-meaning men who would otherwise
support efforts to dismantle the barriers blocking women from realizing
their full potential. The ultimate result of this alarming expansion
of what constitutes sexual harassment is a dramatic chilling of
the social interaction between the sexes. The days when a man might
meet, court, eventually marry a woman he met at his workplace, a
place where he spends at least a third of his life, are over. It's
just not worth the risk.
I find this
a very sad commentary on the state of male-female relations.